Zoning Board of Appeals - MINUTES - 7/22/1999
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES APPROVED
CITY OF MUSKEGO JULY 22, 1999
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Schepp, Henry Schneiker, Terry O’Neil, David Conley and
Assistant Plan Director Dustin Wolff. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M.
ABSENT: Chris Wiken and Michael Brandt
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE: Secretary reported notice was given July 1, 1999, in
accordance with the Open Meeting Laws.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 24, 1999 MEETING: Henry Schneiker made a
motion to approve the June 24, 1999, minutes as presented. Terry O’Neil seconded. Upon voice
vote, motion carried. (David Conley abstained from voting.)
OLD BUSINESS: Signing of decision letters for the June 24, 1999 meeting.
NEW BUSINESS Appeal #07-99, Petitioner: Dennis and Karen Ambrosh Residence: S64 W19044
School Drive Muskego, WI 53150 Tax Key No. 2177.982 REQUESTING: Under the direction of
Chapter 17 Zoning Ordinance: Section 17:3.08(1) Appeal Provisions, Petitioner seeks the following
variance: Chapter 17--Zoning Ordinance: Section 5.02(1)B Building Location: No building
shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or relocated on a lot except in conformity with the
following locational regulations as hereinafter specified for the district in which it is located.
Petitioner seeks a 3.7 foot variance to erect a deck with a 36.3 foot setback from the right-of-way line
(south property line). The Ordinance requires a 40 foot front setback per Section 17:8.08(3). Zoned:
RS-3/OED, Suburban Residence District with Existing Development Overlay.
Henry Schneiker administered an oath to Mr. Dennis Ambrosh and Mr. Kenneth Koepsel.
Mr. Ambrosh read a statement regarding the water problems they have experienced since purchasing
the residence in 1975. They have previously hired a contractor to reinforce a basement wall, they
have brought in dirt to change the grade away from the foundation, they have purchased awnings, all
in hopes of preventing water from running into the basement. The Ambroshes asked several people
about building a covered deck and were erroneously informed they did not need a building permit if
the deck was not attached to the house. They did not inquire with the City Building Department
about the requirements for a permit.
Mr. Ambrosh stated the hardship is the water problems. They have tried various other methods to
keep water out of their basement. They admit they built a deck/porch without a permit, but this has
seemingly solved the water problem. In addition, Mr. Ambrosh stated that to replace the stoop as it
existed was too costly.
Assistant City Plan Director Wolff discussed the zoning. The structure is legal nonconforming
because the front of the house encroaches 8 inches into the 40 foot setback. This house was built
prior to the current zoning regulations. Stoops have historically not been addressed as encroachments
and were not considered part of the residence until the current zoning code was adopted. Previously,
the foundation wall had been the measuring point.
Mr. Wolff stated the zoning regulations consider decks acceptable, but not in the required setback for
the front yard. The Ambroshes have the opportunity to repair the stoop in its previous location. As
for the filling of the property, that is not germaine to the variance. The City Engineer and Building
Department have requirements for filling and altering yard grades to mitigate water run-off problems.
They did not inquire with the City about these requirements. Mr. Wolff stated the City may ask the
petitioner for engineering to stipulate the porch is a viable mitigation of water problem. It is the
responsibility of the petitioner to provide all documentation to prove their case.
Mr. Wolff questioned the hardships stated by the petitioners, stating the hardships indicated are self-
imposed and should be considered inconveniences for the petitioners rather than hardships. He also
stated the Courts have ruled that economic factors do not constitute a hardship. The petitioners still
retain reasonable use of their property without a variance being granted by the Board.
David Conley stated that it was his understanding that economic factors alone do not constitute a
hardship, but cold be in conjunction with other factors.
Chairman Schepp questioned if the averaging for setbacks would be possible. Mr. Ambrosh stated his
neighbor that faces Preston is closer to the road.
Mr. Ken Koepsel, the petitioner’s neighbor, questioned why this is being made into an issue. All the
neighbor’s have signed a letter stating they do not object to this porch.
DELIBERATIONS*****************************************************************
Terry O’Neil made a motion to accept appeal as presented. Hardship being the water problem and
the pre-existing location of structure before zoning codes. This porch is within the spirit of the code.
Dave Conley seconded. Upon roll call vote, motion carried 4-0.
ADJOURN: Henry Schneiker made a motion to adjourn at 8:15. Dave Conley seconded. With no
further business to come before this board, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
\\
Susan Schroeder
Recording Secretary